December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Response to Anonymous re: Zero-Knowledge Freedom
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous, [..] : >FREEDOM servers in their home country (example: if terrible laws are : >passed like in the Netherlands requiring logging and storage of all : >packet info., etc.). In this manner, a local user in a restrictive I'm not aware of any law that requires "logging and storage of all packet info". (I presume you mean 'Wet Computercriminaliteit II' ?) There is a part that makes ISP liable if they cannot point to a 'user' but the law explicitly states that you have to be in the business of being an ISP, running a remailer is not my business, it is a 'not for profit' hobby, so it will be fun to see how "they" will 'manouvre' to bring that also under the law ... Anyways could you please sent me the relevant parts of this law that lead you think this way ? bEST Regards, -- Alex de Joode | International CryptoRunners | http://www.replay.com 'A little paranoia can lengthen your life'

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED TUE NOV 10 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + FAST LOADING XXX HARDCORE + WHITE CHOCOLATE + BLOW BABY BLOW + NYMPHO9 + ASIAN SLUTS + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + PLAYSX + BLONDES WITH BIG TITS + BITCHES IN HEAT + MIDNIGHT PASSION + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/13204.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/18769.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/10668.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/19144.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24117.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

100S OF FREE PICS'N'LINKS EVERY DAY!
by STUFFED MON NOV 9 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + LESBIAN FRIENDS + TECHNOPORN + SOUTHERN BELLE BLOWJOBS + HOT PICS II + NAKED 4 U + ORGASM 4 ALL + JACK IN THE BOX PORNO + SAVING RYAN'S PRIVATES + STIFF ONE EYE + CHAPO'S SEX PAGES + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/20001.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/3051.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/15393.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/16985.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://www.stuffed.net/home/24093.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 08 Nov 1998 00:35:04 -0500 > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: IP: Crunch Time for Y2K Suppliers > Seems to me that it would have been just as easy for "believer" to send the > URL to the story as the whole thing. Same with ol'VZ. > > Not only is it in poor taste, but it means less people will read the > article on wired.com, which is what pays the rent. True, but since when is freedom of speech, association, and press related to wired (or you) making a profit? I feel zero social responsibility to tell people to go there and read it when I can send a snippet of it to them directly and save them the time, effort, and bandwidth. I personaly absolutely *HATE* to recieve a piece of email that contains nothing but a URL, it's worthless - lacks all context. Don't like folks sending partial or whole articles to foster discussion, learn to love it or live with it. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ah, what the hell. It's a good day to practice the golden rule. Forwarded message: > Date: 8 Nov 1998 04:40:03 -0000 > From: lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> > > It seems so pointless to correct Choate. The guy is almost totally > impervious to enlightenment. But a couple of whoppers have to be > pointed out... Speakin of pointless anonymous know-it-all bullshit .... > Electrons don't "carry" photons. Actualy they carry the probability wave for the photon (which technicaly could be anywhere in the universe at any given time because of space contraction caused by relativistic effects), but for this particular discussion which concerns ionized or non-correlated electrons carrying a unit charge and Joules of energy (which is where the photon comes in you anonymous fucking ignoramus) saying the electron is carrying a photon is sufficient. > An atom can absorb a photon, raising > an electron to a higher energy level, but the photon is then gone. Well actualy to be absolutely exact the photon is locked between the protons and the electron. It is *NEVER* gone or destroyed. You can't destroy energy, only transform it's form. The photon is *NEVER* absorbed by anything. Now exactly how is the 'higher energy' level expressed? By a *PHOTON* of shorter wavelength (E=hv) you know-nothing smart-ass anonymous dick-muncher. > a single moving electron certainly doesn't carry a photon. Photons move > at the speed of light, always. Only when they are not correlated to a particle such as a proton or an electron. When an electron or a proton carry a packet of energy (measured in Joules) it most certainly carries a photon. Let's look at the electrical characteristic called voltage (you probably haven't heard of this since the rest of your pseudo-science is as full of bullshit as your mouth) which is measured in Joules/Coulomb. Now a Coulomb of electrons moving past a given point in a unit second is an Amp of current. Want to explain how those electrons manage to carry those Joules of photons if their isn't a correlation? I didn't think you did you anonymous lying sack of horse sperm. Since photons *ARE* light (you fucking anonymous ninny) your last point is irrelevant and redundant. Of course they ALWAYS travel at the speed of light, it's how we define light in the first place. > Quarks are constituents only of baryons. There are no quarks in electrons > or photons. Quarks are constituents of hadrons you dumbass prick sucking gay boy. Protons and Neutrons are hadrons built from 3 quarks and some other bosons (some vector and some not) that glue the nucleus together. Electrons and photons are called Leptons (because they are their own vector boson). Electrons carry electrical unit negative charge and photons carry EM fields. A Baryon is a distinction based on the type of quarks that make up the hadron. If the paticle is made up of no anti-quarks it's a baryon, othwise it's a meson. God, what a load of quantum mechanical horse hockey you spout this fine Sunday morning. I can't hardly wait to see what other anonymous drivel you spew out of your syphilis infested mouth next. > The net charge within the sphere will not change. Then you need to go back to school and learn Gauss's Law all over again. It's ok, you'll probably get it in the first semester unless they recognize what a dumb-ass you are and put you in the remedial section. Then I believe you'll be scheduled to cover those topics your Junior year. > If the box in the > middle with the "spark gap" is spraying out electrons, this can only mean > that the box is itself becoming positively charged. The sphere sees a > constant charge within itself; at best, the charge can be redistributed. Which is the whole point to this exercise. The simple fact that I can put a battery powered radio in a metal sphere as described and *STILL* receive the signal proves the model works within the constraints of the original thesis. Don't believe me? Try it at home with a couple of collanders soldered together. The charge is re-distributed to the surface of the sphere, the total charge of the entire system does stay constant (at least until the insulation breaks down). > There are no net changes of charge within the sphere and so there will > be no changes in any charge appearing on the outside of the sphere. If that were so we wouldn't have a spark in the ball to begin with. > Choate's whole model of how a spark gap transmitter works, and why it > emits electromagnetic radiation, is so bizarre that it is hard to believe. > Someone else can bang their head against the brick wall of his ignorance > on that topic. Who said anything about a spark gap transmitter? We were talking about a battery powered spark gap. Not the same thing at all you anonymous weenie sucker. > Choate is, by far, the worst poster on the cypherpunks list today. He > posts off-topic material, he is argumentative, and 90% of the time, he > is simply wrong. Oh, your just jealous I want let you suck my dick junior. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Electric power generators ?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You're talking about the wired.com article I wrote. I carefully did not say there is a "shortage" of generators, diesel or otherwise -- that's your own misreading of it. I did say that the largest U.S. distributor of diesel generators has half year delays on the most popular model. Same with bulk food suppliers like Walton's. Solar power companies also report vastly increased demand. You can buy cheaper gasoline generators at Home Depot, but there are reasons people want to pay three or four times as much for a diesel model. These differences and the other answers to your questions have been well-documented elsewhere; I'm not inclined to list them for you here, though others might be. -Declan At 05:52 PM 11-7-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >Hi there, > >I saw an article posted about "shortages" of electric power generators >and other Y2K "survival" goods, such as grains in airtight drums. My >reading of the article gave me a feel that those products are bullshit >products geared towards naive losers, and can be easily replaced with >much cheaper products that can be bought at discount stores. > >More careful reading of the article showed that only certain high power >diesel generators are scarce. > >A visit to my local discount retailer has shown that there are 10KW >gasoline generators available for as little as $500. 10KW is far more >than I would need in an emergency. (I will probably need about 2KW). > >Questions: > >1) Aside from probably lower power, are those cheaper generators somehow >worse? > >2) How reliable are those cheaper generators? > >3) What is their expected lifetime, in hours of operation? > >4) How hard is it to service them? > >5) How do you connect them to the electric system, to properly use >them as backup? (this may be a stupid question, but I am not very >familiar with American system of electric wiring). > >6) How much gasoline do they consume if you draw 2KW power from them? > >Thank you. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >char*p="char*p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} > > \=/, _-===-_-====-_-===-_-==========-_-====-_ > | @___oo ( )_ > /\ /\ / (___,,,}_--= ) > ) /^\) ^\/ _) =__ Anything is good and useful if ) > ) /^\/ _) (_ ) > ) _ / / _) ( it's made of chocolate. ) > /\ )/\/ || | )_) (_ ) >< > |(,,) )__) ( http://www.algebra.com/~ichudov ) > || / \)___)\ (_ _) > | \____( )___) )___ -==-_____-=====-_____-=====-___== > \______(_______;;; __;;; >

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Information Security <guy(a)panix.com> > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:59:09 -0500 (EST) > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? > > I would. When it is non-profit, and is equivalent to my neighbor bringing his morning paper over to show me a story (I don't subscribe to the paper so I haven't a license with the copyright holder in principle or practice) he wants to talk about. With the way the law is going that will soon be illegal for me to even look at the paper, though we can probably still talk about it. Though the probable next step is to make even that verbal recitation illegal. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

TEMPEST Laptop from Wang
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry to not post the article, but Wang just announced a TEMPEST compliant portable computer. http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28483,00.html?st.ne.fd.mdh -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: IP: Discover Alien Life With Your PC And SETI (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 20:39:58 -0800 > From: Steve Schear <schear(a)lvcm.com> > Subject: Re: IP: Discover Alien Life With Your PC And SETI > Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems to me that if I were an alien > civilization and wanted to send out a beacon, in as wide an angle as > possible, across the vast reaches of space and overcome as much of the path > losses as possible using the least energy I certainly wouldn't use a narrow > band signal. Quite the contrary, I'd want to spread a low bandwidth > information signal across the widest practical spectrum. Its much easier to > increase process gain (the ratio of the baseband information signal to the > final carrier bandwidth) than transmit power. The problem becomes the 1/r^2 losses. The receivers on this end have fixed lower end to their sensitivity that sets a minimal effective energy output at the transmitter. If you do the math you find that the entire Earth doesn't generate enough energy to send a spread-spectrum wide-band signal more than a few light-years out, not worth the effort or the social costs (nobody'd know about it because radio and television and such wouldn't be available since we're using all *that* energy for sending the signal). This might work for a hive mentality society but not for people. > While a narrow band signal from Arecibo's powerful transmitter/antenna > combination can be detected at a distance of about 300 light years. Since it's only been transmitting intermittenly about 30 years that's more than a tad moot. > Switching to a spread spectrum approach could allow broadening the antenna > pattern, and thereby its chances of detection, significantly without > reducing its effective range. Spread spectrum won't effect the beam angle of the dish, that's set when the dish is designed - spread spectrum or not. Also you'll need to build a new set of LMB's since the old ones won't be able to handle the frequency range or the gross power input required to keep the new signal at a given frequency at a respectible power level with the other frequencies we're now operating on in parallel. That baby's gonna get hot. > Notice how 63 dB (or over 2,000,000 fold > effective increase in transmit power) of process gain enables handheld GPS > receivers to pull in signals from satellites, sent using only a few watts > of transmit power, without much of an antenna. It's amazing how much you can pull in when you increase the sensitivity of the front-end and use mechanisms to reduce noise. > If all this seems to make sense, then why are the SETI people apparently > seaching the skies with lots of narrow band receivers? They don't seem to > be employing any broadband correlator techniques, so spread signals will > probably be missed. Then you haven't been keeping up with the Million Channel Receiver system that has been operating at Aricebo for several years. You also haven't been keeping up with the folks out at White Sands either who also impliment receivers of the same spread-spectrum type. Just about all the current big money (there ain't any since the feds cut the budget several years ago) projects use this system and the small-money and individual projects also impliment it but at a lower range of bandwidth sampled. It isn't that these folks don't want to use the latest technology it's that they can't.....$$$. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO!
by trgz941＠netscape.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO! ---------------- THE MARKETING BENEFITS OF HAVING A YAHOO! LISTING FACT: Yahoo! is the most important search engine/directory on which your Web site can be listed. FACT: Independently conducted Internet studies show that 42% of all Internet traffic and 70% of all business-to- business Web site traffic is generated from Yahoo!. FACT: Getting your Web site listed on Yahoo! is without question the single most important marketing step you can take to promote your Web site. EXAMPLE: For some of our clients, a Yahoo! listing is the only Internet advertising they have--and the only advertising they need. EXAMPLE: Some of our clients now receive over 20,000 hits per *day* and do well over $100,000 in Internet sales per month--not from expensive advertising, but all from a single Yahoo listing. ---------------- YAHOO! REJECTS 90% OF ALL SUBMITTED WEB SITES--BE IN THE 10% PROBLEM: In case you didn't know, Yahoo!'s staff rejects over 90% of the submissions they receive. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of sites-- both those that have been successfuly indexed and those that have been rejected. SOLUTION: Based on our findings, we've helped hundreds of clients not only get their site into the Yahoo! index, but into a very prominent place within that index. The Yahoo! Project Team can do the same for you. ---------------- MY SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY YAHOO! WHAT CAN I DO? PROBLEM: "I submitted my site to Yahoo! but it was rejected. What can I do now?" SOLUTION: If your site has already been rejected--don't despair. We've helped many clients' sites get into Yahoo!'s index even after they've been rejected. ---------------- THE YAHOO! SITE SELECTION PROCESS--IN A NUTSHELL "I can just submit my URL and be considered for a listing, right? It's easy, isn't it?" No. It's not. Read on to learn why. PROBLEM: Every site that gets accepted into the Yahoo! directory is scrutinized by a Yahoo! "editor." The first step in the submission process is to get an already overworked editor to look at your site. SOLUTION: We have a carefully-researched technique to help your site's chances of being examined. PROBLEM: Before submitting, your site *must* be prepared for the Yahoo! editor's "10 minute lookover." In order to grab that editor's attention--and get listed--you need to understand what he or she will be examining to determine if your Web site gets a Yahoo! listing. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of Yahoo! rejection letters and learned why Yahoo! editors commonly reject sites. In short, we can *tell* you ---------------- SOLUTION: THE "SECRETS TO GETTING A TOP YAHOO! LISTING" REPORT We offer an information-packed "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report that will tell you exactly what Yahoo! editors will be looking for when they evaluate your site. You can learn from hundreds of other people's mistakes so that you won't make them when submitting--or resubmitting-- your site. Here's what's covered in the report: <> A general overview of Yahoo! and how it works <> The technical details of what they look for <> What *specific* types of content you *must* have <> What *never* to do before submitting to Yahoo! <> Why looking at your competitors is so important before submitting <> The specifics of how to submit properly to skyrocket your chances <> The best-kept secret on the net: this single submission technique alone has achieved top rankings for many of our clients! ---------------- FOR THE SERIOUS SITE OWNER--THE CUSTOMIZED YAHOO! EVALUATION We also offer a "Customized Evaluation" service where we'll examine your site like a Yahoo! editor will--and tell you, step-by-step, each of the changes you'll need to make before submitting to Yahoo!. The "Customized Evaluation" includes all of the information from the "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report *plus*: <> A customized evaluation of your competitors' sites and why they are so important to consider before submitting <> An evaluation of your site's technical specs. and recommendations for improving them <> An evaluation of your site's content and recommendations for improving it ---------------- SUMMARY: WHY YOU NEED A GOOD LISTING ON YAHOO! (1) If you're thinking of submitting your site to Yahoo! --or have already tried and failed--put our research and the failure of others on your side. (2) Let us help you dramatically improve the effectiveness of your on-line marketing efforts. Preparing your site for Yahoo! is worth the extra effort. (3) Remember: Yahoo! is the only *free* Internet marketing resource that can help you to increase your long-term goals of widespread exposure and profitability. (4) Best of all, once your listed in Yahoo, you're there forever. This one-time effort will be rewarded with years of residual benefits. benefits ---------------- PRICING "Secrets to getting listed on Yahoo!" report -- $99 Customized Web site evaluation (incl. report) -- $249 ---------------- CONTACT US: Call us at: (314) 994-1286 <> Learn more about the Yahoo! project and us. We'll explain exactly how we can maximize your particular site's chances of a top Yahoo! listing <> We'd love to answer any questions you might have! <> It could be the single most important phone call you'll ever make when it comes to the on-line success of your website! (314) 994-1286 ---------------- If you've received this E-mail in error, or do not desire to receive any further mailings from the Yahoo! Project Team, please REPLY to this E-mail with the word "REMOVE" in the E-mail's subject line. Thank you.

1 0

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO!
by trgz941＠netscape.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BOOST YOUR WEB SITE'S TRAFFIC--GET LISTED ON YAHOO! ---------------- THE MARKETING BENEFITS OF HAVING A YAHOO! LISTING FACT: Yahoo! is the most important search engine/directory on which your Web site can be listed. FACT: Independently conducted Internet studies show that 42% of all Internet traffic and 70% of all business-to- business Web site traffic is generated from Yahoo!. FACT: Getting your Web site listed on Yahoo! is without question the single most important marketing step you can take to promote your Web site. EXAMPLE: For some of our clients, a Yahoo! listing is the only Internet advertising they have--and the only advertising they need. EXAMPLE: Some of our clients now receive over 20,000 hits per *day* and do well over $100,000 in Internet sales per month--not from expensive advertising, but all from a single Yahoo listing. ---------------- YAHOO! REJECTS 90% OF ALL SUBMITTED WEB SITES--BE IN THE 10% PROBLEM: In case you didn't know, Yahoo!'s staff rejects over 90% of the submissions they receive. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of sites-- both those that have been successfuly indexed and those that have been rejected. SOLUTION: Based on our findings, we've helped hundreds of clients not only get their site into the Yahoo! index, but into a very prominent place within that index. The Yahoo! Project Team can do the same for you. ---------------- MY SITE HAS ALREADY BEEN REJECTED BY YAHOO! WHAT CAN I DO? PROBLEM: "I submitted my site to Yahoo! but it was rejected. What can I do now?" SOLUTION: If your site has already been rejected--don't despair. We've helped many clients' sites get into Yahoo!'s index even after they've been rejected. ---------------- THE YAHOO! SITE SELECTION PROCESS--IN A NUTSHELL "I can just submit my URL and be considered for a listing, right? It's easy, isn't it?" No. It's not. Read on to learn why. PROBLEM: Every site that gets accepted into the Yahoo! directory is scrutinized by a Yahoo! "editor." The first step in the submission process is to get an already overworked editor to look at your site. SOLUTION: We have a carefully-researched technique to help your site's chances of being examined. PROBLEM: Before submitting, your site *must* be prepared for the Yahoo! editor's "10 minute lookover." In order to grab that editor's attention--and get listed--you need to understand what he or she will be examining to determine if your Web site gets a Yahoo! listing. SOLUTION: Our R&D division has studied hundreds of Yahoo! rejection letters and learned why Yahoo! editors commonly reject sites. In short, we can *tell* you ---------------- SOLUTION: THE "SECRETS TO GETTING A TOP YAHOO! LISTING" REPORT We offer an information-packed "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report that will tell you exactly what Yahoo! editors will be looking for when they evaluate your site. You can learn from hundreds of other people's mistakes so that you won't make them when submitting--or resubmitting-- your site. Here's what's covered in the report: <> A general overview of Yahoo! and how it works <> The technical details of what they look for <> What *specific* types of content you *must* have <> What *never* to do before submitting to Yahoo! <> Why looking at your competitors is so important before submitting <> The specifics of how to submit properly to skyrocket your chances <> The best-kept secret on the net: this single submission technique alone has achieved top rankings for many of our clients! ---------------- FOR THE SERIOUS SITE OWNER--THE CUSTOMIZED YAHOO! EVALUATION We also offer a "Customized Evaluation" service where we'll examine your site like a Yahoo! editor will--and tell you, step-by-step, each of the changes you'll need to make before submitting to Yahoo!. The "Customized Evaluation" includes all of the information from the "Secrets to getting a top Yahoo! listing" report *plus*: <> A customized evaluation of your competitors' sites and why they are so important to consider before submitting <> An evaluation of your site's technical specs. and recommendations for improving them <> An evaluation of your site's content and recommendations for improving it ---------------- SUMMARY: WHY YOU NEED A GOOD LISTING ON YAHOO! (1) If you're thinking of submitting your site to Yahoo! --or have already tried and failed--put our research and the failure of others on your side. (2) Let us help you dramatically improve the effectiveness of your on-line marketing efforts. Preparing your site for Yahoo! is worth the extra effort. (3) Remember: Yahoo! is the only *free* Internet marketing resource that can help you to increase your long-term goals of widespread exposure and profitability. (4) Best of all, once your listed in Yahoo, you're there forever. This one-time effort will be rewarded with years of residual benefits. benefits ---------------- PRICING "Secrets to getting listed on Yahoo!" report -- $99 Customized Web site evaluation (incl. report) -- $249 ---------------- CONTACT US: Call us at: (314) 994-1286 <> Learn more about the Yahoo! project and us. We'll explain exactly how we can maximize your particular site's chances of a top Yahoo! listing <> We'd love to answer any questions you might have! <> It could be the single most important phone call you'll ever make when it comes to the on-line success of your website! (314) 994-1286 ---------------- If you've received this E-mail in error, or do not desire to receive any further mailings from the Yahoo! Project Team, please REPLY to this E-mail with the word "REMOVE" in the E-mail's subject line. Thank you.

1 0

Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email...
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 PM 11/7/98 GMT, phelix(a)vallnet.com wrote: >Is an anymous remailer needs to register, what will the implications be? Armbands next, bubby.

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998 > To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com, cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: IP: Re: A question about the new ISP ruling and email... > Cc: believer(a)telepath.com > > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news list. Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? I would. > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent, it appears... "Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore. Would you like Information Security to cough up more color on his netcopping move? Hey, you ratted me out to the IP list! ;-) ---- > From: Steve Mynott <stevem(a)tightrope.demon.co.uk> > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > > On Sat, Nov 07, 1998 at 11:50:05PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > > Myself, I try to mostly just snip out a few paragraphs of a story and > > comment on them, fair use and all. > > > > My guess is that nearly all of us skip this junk > > completely, and I think marketing studies will someday confirm this. > > Click through rates are something like 2%, so most are screening them out. > I rarely noticed what the ads actually said. > > > (Yes, I tried the utilities which purport to flush banner ads, but they > > didn't work well (long delays, cruftiness).) > > I don't know which ones you have tried but junkbuster > > http://www.junkbuster.org/ (a proxy on port 8000) > > works _very_ well on my linux system, particularly with the "blank gif" > patch. > > It blanks out 99% of banner gifs, which makes pages like metacrawler and > wired look more visually attractive and load faster. But, when sites get smarter about using server-side includes, the I/O delays will still be there. I think ISPs should offer a proxy service for WWW access. They have bigger pipes. This could include an opt-in (configure through an ISP-local WWW page) adbuster. At the same time, it would to a certain extent anonymize access. And let's say cable-modem access becomes wide-spread, and legislation forces the cable companies to allow ISP choice. I think ISPs that offer some privacy in user access over this shared medium will have a leg-up on their competition. That would involve software residing local to the user's box that would encrypt access between them and the ISP for WWW, email, ftp, etc. More than just ssh. Hey, then you would finally have ads that make clear what encryption is for the average user: picture two neighbors going to work in the morning meeting in the elevator, and one starts hinting he knows what the other was receiving for email, which sites he was surfing... Maybe the Anonymizer.com people will release/sell such software for ISPs, and, of course, sans GAK. ---guy

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone > (fwd) > Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 12:39:33 -0800 > > You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no > > government (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent > > someone from doing something. All the state can do (and does, > > if you look closely) is offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. > > Again that is simply incorrect, or do you wish to tell me that our military > has not prevented the invasion of the continental US in this century, or > that it did not prevent the Soviet Union from expanding across Europe? You > cannot completely discount *deterrent force*, although it is greatly > overrated. Woah. This extension into foreign powers and such is an entirely different venue. The entire discussion is based around the question of a government and those citizens within it. When we start talking about multiple government and multiple citizen sets the whole issue is orders of magnitude more complex. > Nor can a government use *retribution force* if it does not know the > perpetrator. Tell that to the hostages that were killed during the occupation of France. > Your statement boils down to the government is not omnipotent. Well duh! Agreed. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You missed my point. What I'm trying to point out is that no > government (or any other body, for that matter) can prevent > someone from doing something. All the state can do (and does, > if you look closely) is offer to punish anyone who disobeys it. Again that is simply incorrect, or do you wish to tell me that our military has not prevented the invasion of the continental US in this century, or that it did not prevent the Soviet Union from expanding across Europe? You cannot completely discount *deterrent force*, although it is greatly overrated. Nor can a government use *retribution force* if it does not know the perpetrator. Your statement boils down to the government is not omnipotent. Well duh! Matt

1 0

Attract men and/or women
by swedegirl＠tracor-es.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ecstasy - The Seduction Audio Cassette Tape! Can Modern Technology be used to put women into a more "receptive mood?" Can Modern Technology be used to make women "more attractive" to men? Can Modern Technology make you a better lover, a more satisfied lover, a more confident lover? YES IT CAN! Read what just two customers said: "I never met so many women so happy to sleep with me!" JK, Des Moines IA "WOW. Thanks for a sexual experience I did not dream possible without drugs." HP Manhattan, NY According to Dr. Martin Feinberg: "This is an amazing and unique tape. The sounds were designed to stimultate brain centers. To enhance pleasure. Reach new levels of sexual experiences without any chemicals or drugs but rather by allowing you mind to be stimulated by audio signals. The velvet voice provides a hypnotic-like state that produces a flow of intense pleasure and satisfaction. All that you need to do is listen." Hundreds of Tapes have been sold -- and rarely has one been returned. It is fully guaranteed to work as advertised or your money is refunded. You have NOTHING to lose. The Ecstasy tape was designed by a licensed Mental Health Counsellor specifically for her clients who had problems meeting the opposite sex, attracting the opposite sex, and having great sex with the opposite sex. Clinically tested, and set to digital music specifically designed to enhance the effects of the tape, you may never find another tape like it. Not yet sold in stores, it is only available on the Internet. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape alone or with a lover or friend. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape and change the way you meet women/men. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape and change the way women and men feel about you. Listen to The Ecstasy Tape and change the way you experience sex forever. 100% Legal. Is it mind control? You'll have to listen and decide for yourself. GUARANTEED* TO: Have potential lovers be attracted to you. Be a Great Lover. Maximize Your Sexual Pleasure. Satisfy any lover. *GUARANTEED or your money refunded! As you listen to the tape your body will feel what it never felt before. Listen alone. Or with a lover. It is a most unbelievable, indescribable experience. 100% Legal. Not a drug. But as powerful as drugs. Not an aphrodisiac. But as powerful as one. Not subliminal but more powerful. This tape, this experience is 100% legal, however, you must be over 18 to purchase it. No exceptions. Absolute satisfaction or purchase price refunded. Listen to the Ecstasy Tape. Experience True Sexual Ecstasy. For 6 months. If you can bear to return the tape after trying for up to 6 months, we will refund your payment. This may be your first and last opportunity to experience Ecstasy possibly the only seduction tape you'll ever find that really works. The digitally prepared Audio Cassette is $19.47 shipped to you. ($17.12 plus $2.45 shipping/handling). Florida residents add sales tax. It is easy to order. You must be over 18. No exceptions. The digitally prepared Audio Cassette is $19.47 shipped to you. ($17.12 plus $2.45 shipping/handling). Florida residents add sales tax. To order with your MasterCard, Visa, Discover or American Express card. Call our operators (24 hours) at (520) 453-0303 Extension - 222 And say "I'd like to order the Ecstasy Tape." OR mail a check or money order for $19.47 to: Euphoria Products 1859 No Pine Island Rd. Suite #133 Dept.222 Plantation, FL 33322 Include your name and street address and write "I would like __ copies of the Ecstasy Tape # 222." Get extra tapes as gifts: add $9.50 for each additional tape. No additional shipping. The Mailing List that you are being mailed from was filtered against a Global Filter List. If you would like not to recieve any other mailings of this type please goto: http//3625362989/

1 0

test5
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test5

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Subject: Re: Advertising Creepiness > > Something that came across our Reuters feed over the weekend is a lawsuit > by the whitehouse.com folks -- they're pissed that a new version of > Netscape has some "intelligent" guessing features that, when someone types > in "whitehouse," automatically take 'em to whitehouse.gov. > > Which interferes with the rights of the whitehouse.com porn site, or so the > argument goes. At least it doesn't cost $40 million to get porn from whitehouse.com. Sounds like a pro-consumer move to me. ;-) > At 12:59 PM 11-8-98 -0500, Information Security wrote: > > > From owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Sat Nov 7 16:04:32 1998 > > > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > > > > > > Now *this* should be fun. Someone who claims to be a cypherpunk is now > > > going to call the copyright police on a non-profit, volunteer news list. > > > >Would you like to know whether it is "fair use" to repost entire articles? > > > >I would. > > > > > When the going gets tough, the "tough" rat out the innocent... > > > >"Innocent" is hardly an accurate description of Michele Moore. > > > >Would you like Information Security to cough up more > >color on his netcopping move? > From declan(a)well.com Sun Nov 8 20:15:48 1998 > > Whether you love or hate current copyright laws, it's a stretch to argue > that it's legal to republish (by forwarding) articles in full. > > Willfully redistributing copyrighted material in violation of fair use > principles is, depending on the value, also a federal crime. Redistributing > a $1 article to thousands of people would be a felony. (Note I don't > endorse this law, but it's useful to know what the law is.) I guess that qualifies as a request for more color. In the local Panix Usenet groups, I've reposted quite a few whole articles, often from the IP list. Finally, a couple people made a stink, and officially complained to Panix. Carl Fink <carlf(a)panix.com> wrote: : On 11 Sep 1998 23:54:58 GMT, Information Security <The(a)NSA.sucks> wrote: : Okay, I've been tolerating this for a long time, but: this is a : violation of both Federal and international law. Post URLs, not articles. My inelegant response: Eat me. The local posters kept applying pressure: : But beyond whatever legal consequences this may entail for you : personally, I wonder what consequences it could conceivably entail for : panix. Posting copyrighted material to general Usenet newsgroups is : one thing -- panix's staff could reasonably claim that they cannot : monitor or filter every Usenet newsgroup. But they could not : reasonably make that argument about the local panix newsgroups. The thread grew full of legal claims, and Panix consulted with lawyers. In the following post by the owner of Panix, the references to "sections 1,3,4" are from the IP list's fair use declaration URL http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml # Path: news.panix.com!not-for-mail # From: alexis(a)panix.com (Alexis Rosen) # Newsgroups: panix.announce,panix.policy,panix.chat,panix.questions # Subject: Determination on copyright issue # Date: 17 Sep 1998 11:28:27 GMT # Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC # # # This message is in response to the discussion/flamewar in several groups # over the posting of copyrighted material by guy(a)panix.com. Please read it, # think about it, read it again, and think again before posting in response. # This is a pretty nasty subject. # # In the wake of the postings and complaints to staff about guy's postings, # I consulted with two lawyers about this issue. One was a BLM, and the other # is a BLM and RIPE too. (Those are extremely technical acronyms for Brilliant # Legal Mind and Recognized Intellectual Property Expert. :-) # # [snip] # # I'm not going to go into the details much, because IANAL. But in short, # here's the answer: Fair use is a VERY fuzzily-defined concept, not in # principle where it's stated clearly in the law (as quoted here several # times recently), but in practice, where the courts try to interpret it. # Guy's claim for fair use could easily be correct, according to the BLMs, # because it may well qualify under sections 1, 3, and 4. I didn't think # so, but then again, I'm not a BLM, much less a RIPE. It would be a truly # terrible idea for us to take action, given the reasonable possibility that # there is no violation. # # It was also pointed out to me that Panix can not act against Guy's posts # without threatening its own position in any future case that might hinge # on whether Panix were an Editor of panix group contents. This might or # might not be the case were someone to start posting large quantities of # commercial software, but the two cases aren't similar, since guy's # postings aren't obvious and uncontestable violations. # # In any event, the BLMs' opinion was that I should very definitely leave # guy alone. This ruling extends to the one or two others that occasionally # post copyrighted material of similar nature, including one of Panix's staff. # # Of course, were the volume of such posts to rise substantially, things might # be different. So this should not be seen as an invitation for all Panixians # to start posting their favorite copyrighted material here on a regular # basis. # # Lastly: In an ideal world, everyone would learn from this and leave the # topic, wiser if sadder. In this less-than-ideal world, if you really want # to post a followup, I suggest that you consult a lawyer. If I hadn't, I'd # surely have stuck my foot in my mouth all the way up to my knee the first # time I posted about this topic. # # /a So, I was allowed to continue posting whole articles. That's what the lawyers advised. Then, the Digital Copyright Massive Federal Interference Act... > Fair Use vs. Intellectual Property: The U.S. Congress > passed the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a bill designed to > distinguish between fair use and protected intellectual property > in cyberspace. > > <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:s.01146:> I chose the IP list as the next-level test case... ---guy snipped source: http://www.wcco.com/news/stories/news-981106-144532.html Suspicious Object Found On Capitol Mall Was Not A Bomb ST. PAUL, Updated 8:35 p.m. November 6, 1998 -- Police hauled away a package with the words "Impeach Clinton Now" and signed by "the Mad Bomber" from the state Capitol on Friday, but temporarily lost when it flew out of a bomb squad trailer. A KSTP-TV helicopter was following the bomb squad van as it drove off towing a trailer containing the suspicious package. The station was taping as the package flew out of the open trailer in the wind and at least three cars ran over it. It took police about an hour to find the remains in the highway median. Some 200 employees, including Gov.-elect Jesse Ventura, were forced to leave the Capitol...

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From ichudov Mon Nov 9 10:27:22 1998 Received: (from ichudov@localhost) by mail.video-collage.com (8.9.1a/8.8.5) id KAA16394 for cypherpunks; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:27:22 -0500 (EST) From: Igor Chudov <ichudov> Message-Id: <199811091527.KAA16394(a)mail.video-collage.com> To: cypherpunks Subject: test5 Reply-To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com X-List-Admin: ichudov(a)algebra.com X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)algebra.com test5

1 0

Wang touts spy-proof portable
by Petro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,28483,00.html?st.ne.ni.lh Wang Global has introduced a new portable computer, but it's not going to be winning any svelteness contests. Wang's Tempest Mobile Workstation, 3 inches thick and weighting 14.5 pounds, is designed for government officials who need spy-proof computers that don't leak any telltale signals to electronic eavesdroppers. ... I want...

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 08:56:29 -0700 > I hope against hope that you are being sarcastic, here. Obviously our > F**KED up red-tape spewing government could never pull off such an endeavor. > Unless, of course, there was a simple way to tell the tax-payers apart from > those wretched NON-payers. Maybe something like an ARMBAND? Embedded > sub-cut microchip? Bar-code tattoos? > > Now you've got a workable plan! How do they tell if you pay taxes now? They keep records. The taxpayer could also be issued a receipt as proof. Make it DL sized and it'd go right in your wallat. It would actualy reduce the amount of paperwork because the vast amount of enforcement labor and resources wouldn't be needed. Then there is the obvious observation that folks such as yourself wouldn't lie about not-being a tax-payer if asked by the nice fireman who just saved your house (after all it would be a serious crime). Me thinks you protest too much. It isn't that you don't want to pay taxes, or that you object to paying higher costs for services than a regular tax payer. You simply want somebody else to pay for the services you use at no cost to yourself. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 09:54:00 -0700 > ~> Me thinks you protest too much. It isn't that you don't want to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ~> pay taxes, > ~> or that you object to paying higher costs for services than a regular tax > ~> payer. You simply want somebody else to pay for the services you use at > ~> no cost to yourself. > ~> > > I think that remark was unfair, uncalled-for, and rude. No where in my post > did I say anything about not wanting to pay. I thought my post was humorous > and in the same sarcastic vein as yours. It was a reply to your statement. If you don't want people to ask questions or draw conclusions from your statements then perhaps you should rething even making those statements. As to sarcasm, there was none in my original posting. > You have insulted me publicly while having no knowledge of who you were > slighting. No, I expressed an opinion as to your motivation. Opinions never insult except when presented as fact. I did not do that. Me still thinks yo protest too much. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Petro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:50 PM -0500 11/9/98, Tim May wrote: >I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. Why, so you don't have to shoot yourself? -- "To sum up: The entire structure of antitrust statutes in this country is a jumble of economic irrationality and ignorance. It is a product: (a) of a gross misinterpretation of history, and (b) of rather naïve, and certainly unrealistic, economic theories." Alan Greenspan, "Anti-trust" http://www.ecosystems.net/mgering/antitrust.html Petro::E-Commerce Adminstrator::Playboy Ent. Inc.::petro@playboy.com

1 0

Accept Credit Cards
by foreclosure-world＠foreclosure-world.cc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ACCEPT CREDIT CARDS!! PRE-APPROVED APPLICATION Good Credit/Bad Credit/No Credit NO APPLICATION FEES For a Limited Time Only! Regular $195.00 Application Fee Waived For This Offer! Increase Your Business Up To 100% Or More, Just By Accepting Credit Cards! This Means More Customers...More Orders...More Money! We Specialize in Home Based Businesses - Apply Today! Accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover! Apply Now by visiting our Online Application Site! We are overwhelmed with Responses... http://209.215.68.186/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If you have received this message in error, please accept our apology as a responsible e-mailer, and reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

1 0

RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: "X" <xasper8d(a)lobo.net> > Subject: RE: How to solve the tax problem w/o anarchy or force (fwd) > Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 10:22:00 -0700 > So you are one of those people that truly believes you can insult someone in > public, then say, "I was responding to you" and cap it off with "it's my > opinion" ? You have formed an opinion about me already? And that opinion > includes the fact that I want other people to carry my weight? How absurd > you are, little man! I simply based it on your apparent motivations based on your statements. > If I had thought you were serious about your article, I would have pointed > out the huge flaws in your theory. I gave you credit for well-thought > sarcasm when apparently it was neither. I'm waiting... ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:04 AM -0800 11/9/98, Declan McCullagh wrote: >I didn't see Tim's original post, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see >such a right "emerge" in claims by media company lawyers. (Probably not the >advertisers.) > >Something that came across our Reuters feed over the weekend is a lawsuit >by the whitehouse.com folks -- they're pissed that a new version of >Netscape has some "intelligent" guessing features that, when someone types >in "whitehouse," automatically take 'em to whitehouse.gov. > >Which interferes with the rights of the whitehouse.com porn site, or so the >argument goes. Seems to me there are numerous variants and angles: * If the adbuster is user-controlled, it's like handing a copy of "Time" to a butler and saying "Please clip out the articles and throw away all the ads." * And "clipping services" do this and redistribute the results to clients, perhaps with some "copyright remuneration" to the publisher (I just don't know). The ads are obviously not retained. * If a content supplier (Web page, magazine, etc.) has the power to stop adbusters from removing ads, does it also have the power to stop font changes? Or colors? Can a television commercial maker sue to stop viewers from disabling color when viewing his commercial? (Of course this wouldn't happen, for various logistical and common sense reasons, but it seems to me analogous to where users disable dancing Java applets....if disabling dancing Java applets is ruled a violation of the advertiser's leasing of the original copyright, why not block anyone who interferes with a television ad?) * The "whitehouse.com" --> "whitehouse.gov" thing is just another skirmish in the whole Namespace War. Corporations will try to get browsers and search engines to turn spelling errors or perceived errors to their favor. "intek.com" --> "intel.com" I'm glad I'm not a lawyer. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

Re: IP: NSA Threatens To "OUT" Republicans Over Hubbell Investigation
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OOH: Oh, I suppose so. Part of the Yet Another Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory. OTOH: 1) The people who run NSA are powerful people in their own right. I would be surprised if they could be easily made into a simple political tool 2) If there is ONE country in the world that the US would like to set up for another "Crypto-AG", another "Softwar"( ok early computer spy story I read long ago ), which country might that be? And why might NSA not want media attention? Could it be that someone spoke before thinking? Ready, fire, aim. That's why I don't go into the woods during deer season. It would be damn nifty to be able to snoop ( and override ) the target country's police and military communications networks and air traffic systems wouldn't it? Now they're wise before we've got'em mainlining our trash. Mike Newt Gingrich - There are some good people in the Republican party. Newt is not one of them. Good riddance to bad rubbish. ******** The seemingly crazy Clinton policy shows our President to be crazy like a fox. Clinton did what Pollard and Walker could not do. President Clinton sold national security secrets for cash by writing his own legal waivers. Clinton's secret crypto policy served to line the pockets of politicians and greedy corporate executives with red money. The Clinton export policy has significantly upgraded the nuclear strategic and tactical firepower of the Chinese Army. Clinton, like Walker and Pollard, sold military code secrets for cash. America knows more about AREA-51 and UFOs than Ft. Meade and Webster Hubbell. Bill Clinton and his China crypto-tale will never be declassified for the American people. The Clinton scandal cover-up is backed by the NSA library of greatest intercepts against Republicans. *********

1 0

Fwd: [ISN] Wang touts spy-proof portable
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Authentication-Warning: enigma.repsec.com: majordomo set sender to >owner-isn(a)repsec.com using -f >Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1998 21:35:22 -0700 (MST) >From: mea culpa <jericho(a)dimensional.com> >To: InfoSec News <isn(a)repsec.com> >Subject: [ISN] Wang touts spy-proof portable >X-NoSpam: Pursuant to US Code; Title 47; Chapter 5; Subchapter II; 227 >X-NoSpam: any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address >X-NoSpam: is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500 US. >X-NoSpam: E-mailing to this address denotes acceptance of these terms. >X-Copyright: This e-mail copyright 1998 by jericho(a)dimensional.com >Sender: owner-isn(a)repsec.com >Reply-To: mea culpa <jericho(a)dimensional.com> >x-unsubscribe: echo "unsubscribe isn" | mail majordomo(a)repsec.com >x-infosecnews: x-loop, procmail, etc > > >Forwarded From: William Knowles <erehwon(a)kizmiaz.dis.org> > >[News.com] (11.8.98) Wang Global has introduced a new portable computer, >but it's not going to be winning any svelteness contests. > >Wang's Tempest Mobile Workstation, 3 inches thick and weighting 14.5 >pounds, is designed for government officials who need spy-proof computers >that don't leak any telltale signals to electronic eavesdroppers. > >The boxes are designed to meet the U.S. government's "Tempest" >specification, which requires a computer to release extremely low amounts >of electromagnetic emissions that could reveal what information the >computer is processing. > >To protect against such emissions, Tempest-compliant machines must be >encased in a lot of metal. Wang's portable looks like a thick laptop, said >Wang spokeswoman Loretta Day, "but it's really so heavy, you can't really >call it a laptop" --all that metal would make it quite a burden for your >lap. > >As an added bonus, all that metal shields the computer from the >electromagnetic pulse (EMP) generated by an exploding nuclear bomb that >wreaks havoc with anything electronic. > >When it's running, the machine can withstand a shock of five Gs--that's >five times the acceleration caused by the Earth's gravity. But when it's >switched off, it can take a 60-G shock. > >Aside from being spy-proof, the new Wang system has some features that are >familiar to ordinary buyers: a 15.1-inch LCD screen, a 233-MHz or 266-MHz >Pentium II processor, a CD-ROM drive, and your choice of a 4GB, 6GB, or >8GB removable hard disk. > >Wang also makes Tempest-compliant desktop computers, printers, routers, >switches, and servers. It's one of a handful of such companies that supply >the equipment to the government. Day said the chief customers are the >State Department and intelligence agencies. Wang also makes computer >equipment that complies with the Zone standard, similar to but less >stringent than the Tempest standard. > >Pricing on the Wang portable wasn't available, but a competitor's Tempest >portable computer with more lesser features was listed at one government >Web site as costing more than $10,000. > > >-o- >Subscribe: mail majordomo(a)repsec.com with "subscribe isn". >Today's ISN Sponsor: Repent Security Incorporated [www.repsec.com]

1 0

Re: Advertising Creepiness
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:50 AM -0800 11/9/98, Tim May wrote: >Seems to me there are numerous variants and angles: > >* If the adbuster is user-controlled, it's like handing a copy of "Time" to >a butler and saying "Please clip out the articles and throw away all the >ads." > >* And "clipping services" do this and redistribute the results to clients, >perhaps with some "copyright remuneration" to the publisher (I just don't >know). The ads are obviously not retained. By the way, the White House and Pentagon are major forwarders of clipped material. The daily intelligence briefing, for example, clips from newspapers, magazines, wire services, etc. I can understand Declan trying to be a loyal reporter by urging people to buy the magazine or go to the ad-laden site, but clearly a lot of folks are already bouncing stuff around cyberspace, including the White House. It is _remotely_ possible that the gov't. is paying some token amount to Time Warner, CNN, WSJ, etc., but I doubt it. Speaking of the gov't. conveniently ignoring what it expects private players to do, a few days before the California election I got a telephone phone solicitation from a male voice identifying himself as the Calif. Secretary of State. Ordinary advertising, right? Well, it was a) left on my answering machine, and b) was itself a recording. California officials not subject to the "robot's rules of order" laws, which forbid the practices above, especially in combination. You can bet that if J. Random Corporation was using robot dialers and leaving recorded messages on answering machines there would be the threat of prosecution. (Actually, most threats to corporations are just shakedowns, and are considered discharged when the corporation makes the appropriate campaign contribution.) Of course, in a system where the Chief Executive can perjure himself with impunity, can suborn perjury, can tamper with evidence, and can use public monies to cause his subordinates to suborn perjury and perjure and tamper with evidence.... (Not to mention violating the export laws and committing high treason by supplying the Red Chinese with ICBM technology....and kiling Vince Foster for his attack of conscience and his plans to meet with a reporter....) Ah, Amerika. --Tim May Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

1 0

SR2201 Supercomputer
by Jan Dobrucki 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Prod/comp/hpc/eng/sr1.html Is the link for more information, in english... And I can't find a stupid computer and a printer in one place that prints postscript so I still haven't been able to give in my application for the account on this super computer... JD

1 0

SR2201 Supercomputer
by Jan Dobrucki 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.hitachi.co.jp/Prod/comp/hpc/eng/sr1.html Is the link for more information, in english... And I can't find a stupid computer and a printer in one place that prints postscript so I still haven't been able to give in my application for the account on this super computer... JD

1 0

Encrypted FS for Linux
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know this was discussed recently, but I don't recall seeing the answer. Are there any recent cryptographic filesystem patches for Linux (preferably later 2.1 kernels) which implement at LEAST CAST-128 and IDEA?

1 0

Y2K is coming, and boy, is it pissed?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

;-) Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:20:06 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: 25% of Christians Expect Christ's Return in Their Lifetimes Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: NandoNet http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/nation/102498/nation1_27950_noframes.html Third Millennium's approach raises end-time hopes, fears Copyright © 1998 The Associated Press WASHINGTON (October 24, 1998 08:50 a.m. EDT http://www.nandotimes.com) -- Jesus Christ is about to return, and the 1,500 folks packed into the Sheraton Washington ballroom couldn't be happier. For 16 hours a day, the End-Time Handmaidens pray and sway, singing of the day they will "dance on streets that are golden." Around them, middle-aged women clad in white and gold robes glide through the aisles while other believers blow into rams' horns, their shrieks announcing the Second Coming. The end is near. The end-timers are here. "We're running out of time. We're running out of time," Sister Gwen Shaw, the group's septuagenarian matriarch, says at the Handmaidens' annual convention in 1997. "This is God's last call." While these Handmaidens may be on America's evangelical fringe, their beliefs about the millennium and Christ's Second Coming are remarkably mainstream. According to a 1997 Associated Press poll, nearly one out of every four Christian adults -- an estimated 26.5 million people -- expect Jesus to arrive in their lifetimes. Nearly as many -- an estimated 21.1 million Americans -- are so sure of it that they feel an urgent need to convert friends and neighbors. The results are consistent with other surveys that have found a widespread belief in the Second Coming. But the AP poll, conducted last spring by ICR of Media, Pa., probes how Christians are acting on their beliefs. The most fervent end-timers gather at prophecy conventions such as this one in Washington, but their dreams and fears reverberate throughout the country. America may have already entered what one apocalyptic scholar calls the "hot zone" of end-time speculation: The year 2000 is far enough away to be plausible as Christ's Second Coming, yet close enough to spark intense proselytizing. "I look at prophecy as a Polaroid picture that takes five minutes to develop," says Zola Levitt, a Dallas evangelist on The Family Channel. "I'd say we're at four minutes, 55 seconds." At the end-timers' convention, believers pay hundreds of dollars for Jewish liturgical instruments fashioned from rams' horns -- for the chance to play their own small part in announcing the Second Coming. In unpracticed hands, these shofars sound like a third-grade orchestra warming up. Others, both in and out of the mainstream, are also blowing horns of warning. There are best-sellers such as Pat Robertson's "The End of the Age." Scores of broadcasters, from Jack Van Impe to Hal Lindsey, have preached of the end times. And the Internet offers more than 100 popular millennial sites, including This Week in Bible Prophecy and End Times Links. For evangelical Christians, the Second Coming is what's new about the new millennium. According to the AP poll, almost 40 percent of Christians expect Jesus to arrive in the 21st century, if not sooner. They are looking past Jesus' own admonition that "no one knows the hour." By their reckoning of Biblical clues, the time is soon. Belief in Jesus' return has underpinned Christianity from its earliest days. Each week, Christians throughout the world recite the Apostle's Creed, invoking Jesus who "will come again to judge the living and the dead." Each day, many begin The Lord's Prayer, passed down by Jesus, with "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come...." But what makes today's prayers so earnest? What separates this generation of end-time prophets from those of the last two millennia? Israel. The New Testament compares the kingdom of God, near at hand, to the growth of a fig tree. Some believers substitute Israel for the tree. They say the Second Coming is near at hand when the tree shoots forth branches -- when Israel becomes a nation. And that happened in 1948. "Verily I say unto you, 'This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled,"' Jesus says in Luke 21:32. Since many end-time prophets also place the apocalyptic Armageddon in Israel, developments there continue to stir interest. In 1967, when Israel reclaimed much of Jerusalem from Jordan, the prophecy in Luke was only strengthened. During the 1991 war between the United States and Iraq, many evangelists -- from Billy Graham to John Walvoord, chancellor of the Dallas Theological Seminary -- envisioned the beginning of the end. And when the 1993 Mideast peace pact was signed, radio evangelist Monte Judah of Norman, Okla., identified the beginning of seven years' tribulation heralding the Second Coming. For evangelicals, signs of the end can be found anywhere, anytime. Worldwide disasters -- floods, wars, earthquakes -- are what Jesus, in the Gospel of Matthew, told followers to look for. The Hale-Bopp comet, famine in Africa, developments in the European Common Market, even the convergence of full moons and Jewish religious festivals -- all are sifted for clues of the apocalypse. "There's a lot happening in our time that would give most people a concern and an excitement that the Lord is going to return," Thomas A. McMahon says. He is executive director of the Berean Call, a religious newsletter out of Bend, Ore., that circulates to 80,000 Christians. "Every day has significance. Every political, social, economic event has significance," says Phillip Lucas, general editor of Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions. "Your whole experience of time is greatly heightened." If the time is near, why not sometime around the year 2000? For end-timers who cite a divine plan, great things tend to happen in 2,000-year periods. Abraham and Isaac, patriarchs who established a covenant between God and humans, were born around 2000 B.C. Two millennia later, Christians believe, God became man with the birth of Jesus. Those who believe human history is 6,000 years old wait with special expectancy. Consider the mathematics in Peter's Second Letter: "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years." For these believers, the new millennium starts on the seventh day of creation. For them, after 6,000 years of strife and turmoil, it's time for 1,000 years of heavenly rest as Jesus rules over the Kingdom of God on Earth. "A lot of people think maybe the year 2000," says Leon Bates, head of the Bible Believers' Evangelistic Association in Sherman, Texas. "I would go along with the thought that it would be just like the Lord to have an overall 7,000-year plan." Oleeta Herrmann believes the end could come any time. She traveled to the end-timers' convention from Xenia, Ohio, where three 25-foot crosses in her back yard warn neighbors to get right with God. Like others at the convention, she has heard the rustle of angels preparing the way of the Lord. One night, she says, Jesus appeared in her bedroom to reassure her that nieces and nephews would not be left behind when she is lifted into the clouds to join others in her family who have died. "You're bringing the rest of them with you," were the Lord's words, she says. Willie Mae Johnson, at the convention from Lighthouse Free Methodist Church in St. Louis, has no such assurances. What will happen to her father, her children and other relatives who have not accepted Christ? She is beginning to waver as 2000 approaches. "I don't want to leave anyone behind, so you say yeah, and you say no," she says. "I want Jesus to come back right now, but just wait a little while, Jesus." Even vendors at the end-timers' convention raise provocative questions, selling T-shirts that feature three frogs plopped on a lily pad and asking: "Where are you goin' when you croak?" Many people are not going to make it through the tribulation. "He has given us ... a burden for lost souls," says the Rev. Dorothy Mottern, accompanied to the convention by church members from Fredericksburg, Va. For those who read Revelation as a literal forecast, the future is frightening for people without God's seal on their foreheads. In that Book, a third of the Earth burns, and angels kill a third of those who survive. For others, torture is so severe that "people will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them." Warnings like these can change lifestyles. In the AP poll, 98 percent of those who believe Jesus will return in their lifetimes say they urgently need to get right with God. About 21.1 million Americans, the poll estimates, have decided to get others right, too, wanting to convert friends, neighbors and relatives. Among age groups, the urgency is felt most widely among Baby Boomers. By region, it is most prevalent in the South. This urgency has created sweeping evangelistic campaigns. Celebrate Jesus 2000, a coalition of evangelical churches and ministries, wants to reach the "entire nation for Christ" by the third millennium. In an unprecedented action, the 15 million-member Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, in 1996 vowed to make special efforts to evangelize the Jews. Of course, the end of the world has been predicted many times before. But dates for the Second Coming have come and gone. In the 1840s, followers of William Miller quit jobs, sold belongings and moved to upstate New York to await the return of Jesus. He didn't come. Two successful churches arose from the Millerite Movement: The Seventh-day Adventists and the Jehovah's Witnesses. Both continue to anticipate the end-times but no longer specify the date. Charles Taze Russell, founder of the modern-day Witnesses, predicted that the millennial age would begin in 1914. World War I raised hopes he was right, but the movement's catchword -- "Millions now living will never die" -- gradually lost its urgency. Two years ago, the Witnesses officially dismissed date-setting as speculation, declaring Jesus was right that "no one knows the place and the time." The Worldwide Church of God also no longer sets dates for the end-times, partly because founder Herbert W. Armstrong was so often wrong. Hal Lindsey's "Late Great Planet Earth" raised end-time fears in the 1970s. Now he has a new best seller, "Planet Earth - 2000 A.D." So what will happen this time, if life goes on? Some worry that fringe end-times movements may act in increasingly desperate ways. They point to the mass suicides of the Heaven's Gate and Branch Davidian communities, whose charismatic leaders believed they had special word from God about end-times. However, most experts on evangelical Christianity think believers will accept delays -- and perhaps even be a bit relieved. In the AP poll, only 61 percent of Christian respondents who believe Jesus will arrive in their lifetime are praying for his quick return. Walvoord, of the Dallas Theological Seminary, says it reminds him of a Sunday school teacher who asked the class who wants to go to heaven. When only one boy failed to raise his hand, the teacher asked: "Don't you want to go?" "Yeah," the boy replied, "but I thought you were getting a load to go right now." By DAVID BRIGGS, AP Religion Writer ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

what's related to what's related
by evan.cordes＠UMICH.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "Bernard A. Galler" <galler(a)umich.edu> Subject: Fwd: IP: Netscape's XML App -- or what is really What's Related Newsgroups: umich.interesting.people Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 08:52:32 -0500 >Delivered-To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com >X-Sender: dfarber(a)mail.earthlink.net >Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 16:44:28 -0400 >To: ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com >From: Dave Farber <farber(a)cis.upenn.edu> >Subject: IP: Netscape's XML App -- or what is really What's Related >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Sender: owner-ip-sub-1(a)majordomo.pobox.com >Precedence: list >Reply-To: farber(a)cis.upenn.edu >Status: > >Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 15:23:37 GMT >From: dwiner(a)well.com (DaveNet email) >Subject: Netscape's XML App > >------------------------------------- >>From Scripting News... It's DaveNet! >Released on 10/24/98; 8:23:30 AM PST >------------------------------------- > > Yesterday I got an email from Jeff Veen at Wired pointing me to the > server that Netscape is running its What's Related? application on. > This server is part of the project they did with Alexa Internet, and > it's the back-end for the What's Related? feature in Netscape 4.5. > > I had a little time to kill, was looking for a diversion, so I sent a > message to Netscape's server via script and I was blown away. It's > XML! Yes it is. And why, oh why, didn't they tell anyone? (Or did I miss > something?) > > Anyway, I wrote an app that talks to their server. It interfaces thru > an HTML form. You enter the URL of a site, and I find out what's related, > with a twist. The URL to the related site links back to the form, and I do > a lookup on *that* site, allowing you to interactively walk their > tree of relationships. > > This is just a demonstration. I want to be sure that people interested > in building XML apps have a way to experience the XMLness of what > Netscape has done, which is very interesting, for sure. > > Here's the link to my app: > > <http://nirvana.userland.com/whatsRelated/> > > Hope you like it! > > ***Absence makes the heart do what? > > Oh baby, so sorry to be gone for so long. > > Sometimes the most important thing is being heard. > > And sometimes it's most important to say nothing. > > For the last four weeks I haven't had much to say. I've been busy and > quiet and more productive than I can remember ever being. What am I > doing? Building cool servers and editors, of course! > > Stay tuned... > > Dave Winer > >------------------------------------------- >Scripting News: <http://www.scripting.com/> > Bernard A. Galler E-mail: galler(a)umich.edu Fax: 734-668-9998

1 0

Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 12:00:01 +0100 (CET) > From: DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User <nobody(a)seclab.com> > Subject: Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en > > This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties > > of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's > > archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for > > inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future > > investigations. > > Echelon. Also see [*1 below] No, you silly boy. Too simple an answer and not really relevant to the question I asked; I doubt the IRS is greatly interested in Echelon. Besides, I was pondering *ethical issues* not the reality of the world. > remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't > responsible for it. Does it really cover archives? Why are archivers carriers? They are certainly doing more than simply transfering data from here to there. They're making sure you can do it whenever. Further, there is a nagging implication of 'real-time' in that review stipulation. > Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment > fig leaf. So to be qualified the content must be publicly accessible? Or is private access ok as well? Is 'content provider' the same as 'content carrier'? > [hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.] What a silly interpretation. I am subscribed just like anyone else, of course I can read the traffic. Near as I can tell I just can't read it *before* everyone else gets to read it (ie on the outbound leg of its journey through SSZ). > [preamble] Want to clarify that comment? (it's a joke) > ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the > Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting > unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the This aspect clearly isn't going to apply to a publicly accessible mailing list since it's going to be very near impossible to argue for any right to privacy since a submitter *wants* others to see their traffic and there is the implied intent to distribute without restriction (at least on the cpunks). > other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)). This would prevent me or anyone else, at least on the surface of it, from getting at the content *prior* to the distribution phase. > [*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally > and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).] I suspect they have Toto for something in meatspace and not specificaly for something on this mailing list. Near as I can figure they're trolling the list to get ancillary evidence of intent and potentialy evidence of accomplices. > [re: public domain software on ftp archives] > > It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library > open to the public. Which means what? At this point the contents of such a site are clearly intended for review without constraint on the end use, at least I've never had a public library employee or ftp operator ask me what I'm wanting the info for. Or is the implication that such a site would be protected from monitoring prior to the files being placed in the archive? ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Re: Feds Seize Houses for Illegal Downloading
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:08 AM 10/25/98 -0000, Secret Squirrel wrote: >What are they going to do, launch a cruise missile strike on the server and >send the shock troops in to put all anonymous remailers out of business? You don't think Anguilla is due for a Tomahawk sometime in the future?

1 0

Re: so, what did Toto *do*,......
by Joseph 'Anonymous' Howe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reeza! wrote: > > >all seen posted here. Personally, I found them a lot milder than Reeza!'s > >projection of his suicide fantasies, for instance. > > Huh? Well Goodness Fuck, Does this mean I am notorious as well? In a post primarily about your feelings about Klinton, you outlined a detailed suicide fantasy ("meet your maker") and suggested other people might like to eat a bullet too. That's closer to presidential assasination than Toto ever got.

3 2

the ANON delivery
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

anon sent something via MeatSpace Mail a few months back. any relevence to current circumstances should be ignored, eh MongerMonger

1 0

Re: AOL lameness
by lcs Mixmaster Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now _this_ is illustrative... Husband: "Hi. I'm having a problem connecting to the Internet." Tech Support: "Ok sir, what operating system are you using?" Husband: "Oh...I'm really not sure...I'm not the computer expert. My wife is. She's sitting at the computer. I'm going to dictate this to her." (pause) "She says we use Windows 95." Tech Support: "Ok. What exactly is the problem?" Husband: "I can't connect." Wife: (in the background) "We can't even get on -- the software is buggy!" Tech Support: "Ok, what happens when you try to connect?" Husband: "Ok, the Connect To: screen pops up, and it asks for my password." Tech Support: "Did you put your password in?" Husband: "Yes, and it keeps asking for it afterwards." Tech Support: "Do you have your caps lock key on?" Husband: "Yes, but that shouldn't make any difference." Tech Support: "Uhm...go ahead and hit the caps lock key until the light goes away." Husband: "Are you sure? We've always got on with the caps lock key on." Tech Support: "Yes, I'm sure." Husband: "Oh, ok. It took my password." Wife: (in the background) "I told you!" (They start arguing. She takes the phone from him.) "HELLO?" Tech Support: "Yes, hello, you should be all set from here." Wife: "YES HI, I'VE BEEN USING YOUR DAMN SOFTWARE FOR I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW LONG, AND I STILL CAN'T GET EMAIL FROM MY SON IN THE NAVY!" Tech Support: "What program do you use for email, ma'am?" Wife: "I use Windows 95! We already told you that!" Husband: (in the background) "We already told her that, didn't we?" Tech Support: "No, what mail application...such as Eudora, Netscape, Internet Explorer..." Wife: "Microsoft Netscape." Tech Support: "Netscape?" Wife: "Yes, Microsoft Netscape." Tech Support: "Ok, open that up and go to Options, and then Mail and News Preferences--" Wife: "No, I want email! I don't want to surf the net!" Tech Support: "Netscape comes with an email program, and we're going to set it up now." Wife: "Ugh. Fine. Whatever. We'll do it YOUR way." Tech Support: "Ok." (explains how to set up popmail) Wife: "I'm not getting mail." Tech Support: "Do you have two phone lines?" Suddenly I hear the modem attempting to dial in. Tech Support: (over the roar of the modem) "MA'AM? YOU ONLY HAVE ONE PHONE LINE. DON'T TRY TO DIAL IN." (beep click click) Tech Support: "You can't dial up with this line. It's already in use." Wife: "I was always able to use it before YOU changed my settings!" Tech Support: "No, you will just have to disconn--" Wife: "You tech support people always mess up my settings, and then I have to bring my computer back to [retailer] to get it fixed! You know, you cost me so much money!" Tech Support: "Ma'am, I didn't change any of your Internet settings." Wife: "Yes you did, we just went through a NUMBER of things." Tech Support: "All we did was--" Wife: "I've had ENOUGH of your service. I'm going back to AOL." (click) >From <http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid/cs_calls.shtml>

1 0

Regarding Mitnick: not.
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ZDnet just sent out a newsletter promoting a series of stories, including this one: # IS YOUR KID A HACKER? # Is your teen hacking the Pentagon instead of doing homework? # How to tell -- and how to handle it. Convicted hacker Kevin # Mitnick gives his views. # # http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdnu98102501/www.zdnet.com/familypc/content/98… No mention of Mitnick. They apparently meant to name the article author 'Kevin Poulsen'. # It happened to my family 15 years ago, in one of the first hacker raids in the # country. At that time, I was the teenage miscreant who was illegally accessing # federal computers. Now, in my early thirties, I've begun to wonder how I would # protect a kid of my own from becoming a poster child for computer crime. I believe # the best approach is to stay informed and to communicate with your potential # cyberpunks. That reminds me. For those who haven't seen it, there is a commercial showing a little girl (about 8?) walking into an airport, dizzied by all the destination choices. The narrative turns to ~"and the Internet too has many destinations, not all of which she is ready for. Travel together..." All things considered, better than the Federales approach. ---guy When your only tool is a hammer...all brains look like Gallagher's watermelons.

1 0

Your New Online Dumbshit Number
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<Thank you for registering with Adobe Systems, Inc. < <Your new Online Customer ID is: 2202094119525317 < <The PIN you entered and confirmed has been encrypted and stored with your >registration information. > >Please remember your Customer ID and PIN for the next time you login as an >Adobe Customer on www.adobe.com. Thank you for spamming the Cypherpunks List. Your new Online Dumbshit ID is: 3313105220636428 The PIN you entered and confirmed has been encrypted using GAKed crypto and stored with your registration information, the names of your children, your address, and nude pictures of your spouse. Please remember your Dumbshit ID and PIN for the next time you spam as an Adobe Spokesperson from adobe.com.

1 0

IP: FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:57:54 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/washtech/fcc1023.htm FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps By Roberto Suro Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, October 23, 1998; Page A16 Law enforcement agencies armed with court-authorized surveillance orders would be able to determine the location of a mobile telephone caller under rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission yesterday. The FCC proposals, which are still subject to a comment and review process, would also require wireless telephone carriers to ensure that police could tap into conference calls and collect information on the use of services such as call-waiting and call-forwarding on cellular phones. Determining how wiretapping will be adapted to the age of wireless telecommunications has been the subject of a long-running dispute between the telephone industry, privacy groups and the Justice Department and the FBI, which have represented law enforcement agencies nationwide. In 1994 Congress enacted the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, which mandated that law enforcement get the capabilities it needed to monitor wireless communications without imposing unreasonable costs on industry or undue invasions of privacy. The law did not, however, spell out how this should be accomplished. The FCC proposals approved yesterday mark the first time that a neutral referee has defined what exactly is required by the 1994 law and has thus defined the final stage of the debate. "The FCC indicated its determination to ensure that, in the face of rapid technological change, law enforcement maintains its ability to use court-authorized wiretaps to combat the most serious crime, and at the same time the FCC recognized the important privacy interests at stake," said Jonathan Schwartz, an associate deputy attorney general. The Center for Democracy and Technology, which has led the fight for privacy groups, issued a statement charging that the FCC had "proposed turning wireless phones into location tracking devices and requiring telephone companies to build additional surveillance features into their telephone networks, largely rejecting privacy arguments that the government already has too much surveillance powers." The Justice Department and the FBI asked the FCC to intervene in April after failing to convince industry and privacy groups to accept a list of nine technical provisions considered essential to meet law enforcement's needs. The FCC's proposed rules accepted the law enforcement position on five points. These include access to detailed information on conference calls, such as knowing when a party has gone on hold or has dropped from the call. In addition, the FCC acceded to law enforcement's request for access to digits dialed by a caller after the call has been connected, such as the numbers punched to get access to a bank account or voice mail. The FCC rejected law enforcement demands on three points, including a requirement that carriers send a signal to verify that a wiretap is functioning properly, and declined to rule on a proposal that the carrier send a signal whenever a caller received a network message, such as an incoming ring that did not result in a completed call. The proposal acknowledged the telecommunications industry's complaint that the FBI was demanding capacities "that go beyond the scope of what Congress had intended," said Thomas E. Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association. The FCC rejected a petition from the Center for Democracy and Technology asking it to prevent law enforcement from gaining location information from wiretaps on cellular phones. The proposed rule would oblige carriers to provide any information they have on the location of a phone at the beginning and termination of a call. "This does not turn wireless phones into tracking devices," FCC Chairman William E. Kennard said in a statement. "Law enforcement can only secure this information if a court authorizes it. This capability will help law enforcement make our streets safe." © Copyright The Washington Post Company ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ****************************************************

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sure bet the "EOP" was jerking Softwar's chain, observing one or two levels deeper what he reports he was getting from his ISP. Such reconnaissance by fire is customary practice, according to multi-level logs of the snoopers prowling the finer-grained log levels down to what semi-skilled ISPs are able to keep track of, report on, and fend the prying devils/customers off with. Watch out, though, for the deepwatchers of the recon teams sent out as freshmeat from compsec training bases of the infrastructure protection farms, some working for, running ISPs. Some of the recon by fire teams are bait the CI meanies use to snare those working both sides, you know, the venerated old salts "who set up Arpanet" and their hotshot inheritors at the best universities and tanks in the country convinced they know what's best for the churchgoers of techno future. Software mentioned the name of one of them advising on how to do this, though it's not clear that Smith knew who he was inadverdently passing over while he was avidly trying to catch mechanical rabbits sent out to run the inbred speedsters ragged chasing easy prey, not knowing, not caring, they're on a track, just displaying they're trained to hang in there in sniffing range of the bunny's ass: Brown, Foster, Podesta, Hillary, Bill. EOP is not only what it's reported to be. Nor is any address that's readily traceable. Onion layered they are, more than NRL knows. Bet Anonymizer is not only what it's reported to be, that is, the semi-sharp operators don't know what it's being used to onion. Are remailers, recon by fire. Like this? Is strong encryption the answer? Right, peddle that.

2 1

IP: WHITE HOUSE HITS SOFTWAR WEB SITE!
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Date: Sat, 24 Oct 1998 21:02:07 -0400 (EDT) To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com From: softwar(a)us.net (CharlesSmith) Subject: IP: WHITE HOUSE HITS SOFTWAR WEB SITE! Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: softwar(a)us.net (CharlesSmith) >From the 10/23/98 WWW hit report from www.us.net/softwar website % bytes files name 2.11 1.28 62230 20 | gov.eop.gatekeeper 198.137.241.100 GOV.EOP = EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Once again, the White House has visited the Softwar web site. Last night the White House downloaded 20 files for a total of about 62K worth of data. The White House seems to be interested in the SOFTWAR documents covering the CSPP or Computer Systems Policy Project and John Podesta. One document of interest to White House fans of SOFTWAR is the memo written by BXA head Bill Reinsch to Ron Brown, dated June 1, 1995, which arranged a secret meeting between the White House and the CSPP on June 6, 1995. The CSPP has admitted in writing that they attended several CLASSIFIED briefings at the invitation of the Clinton White House on super computer exports and encryption technology. Another curious White House download included data on SOFTWAR's new ciphering products such as our encrypted emailer and encrypted web browser. I extend a hearty digital welcome to President Clinton from the INTERNET. Mr. Podesta requested in the spring of 1998 that I send him written questions. Mr. Podesta has not answered these questions and now refuses to be interviewed. Again, I challenge the President, or anyone in the Administration, to answer the questions submitted as per Mr. John Podesta's request. I have attached the questions that HAVE NEVER BEEN ANSWERED below. My website provider - us.net - gives a listing of "hits" on my website. Most WWW providers can give you this information. Here is tip number six from my ART of INFO WARFARE postings. Tip #6 - Anonymous Surfing. Please note - each time you hit a web site (www site) with your internet browser it leaves your email address and more for the web masters to play with. They usually end up sending you spam (unsolicited) email on related services and products. Avoid this by surfing anonymously. Go to http://www.anonymizer.com - This service is great when you don't want to trigger those marketing programs and junk mail. It's also good to use if you visit the NSA, CIA, or North Korean web sites. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ March 2, 1998 Mr. John Podesta The White House 202/456-1907 Attn: Sarah Latham REF. INTERVIEW FOR ARTICLE IN INSIGHT MAGAZINE (Washington Times Group) TOPIC: ENCRYPTION and COMPUTERS Dear Mr. Podesta: Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. 1. What is your current position and previous term(s) of service at the White House? 2. Are you currently working on encryption policy? 3. Can the current "Key Recovery" design as proposed by the Clinton administration be used against political opponents or dissidents by oppressive governments such as China or Iraq? 4. Do you deny that Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell were involved in encryption policy and the CLIPPER project? If so please explain their documented meeting at NSA Ft. Meade in May, of 1993? 5. I have obtained documents that describe meetings between George Tenet and Webster Hubbell in reference to project CLIPPER which took place inside the White House in 1993. Please explain Mr. Hubbell's role in CLIPPER and Mr. Hubbell's role in encryption policy. 6. What meetings have you had with the Computer Systems Policy Project (CSPP)? 7. What was the role of the Computer Systems Policy Project in Mrs. Clinton's Health Care Reform initiative? 8. What is your relationship with Ken Kay, Director of the CSPP? 9. Has the CSPP met in the White House, Old Executive Office or the Commerce Dept? If so, when and on what subjects? 10. I have documented evidence of three exports of encryption technology to China; HUA MEI, Motorola and RSA/SDI. Please describe the role of the Clinton administration in helping these exports take place. 11. Explain why meetings between the CSPP and the US Government should not come under the FACA (Federal Advisory Committee Act) laws? 12. Please explain Al Gore's role in CLIPPER and inside the Inter-Agency Working Group for encryption. 13. Please explain Ron Brown's role in CLIPPER and inside the Inter-Agency Working Group. Did Ron Brown discuss encryption with representatives of China? 14. Was the CLIPPER design or Skipjack algorithm disclosed to any foreign government or representative? 15. What kind of encryption policy did you discuss with CIA Director Deutch, George Tenet and NSA Director McConnell in late December of 1993? 16. What role did the Federal government play in the merger of Silicon Graphics and CRAY? 17. Please describe the Clinton administration's role in the "accidental" export of Silicon Graphics super-computers to a Russian nuclear weapons lab and the exports of some 46 supers to China. 18. What role did the Federal government play in dealings with Andrew Logan in 1993? Did Mr. Logan get paid to not sue the US Government over the CLIPPER design? 19. What role did the Federal government and specifically AL GORE play in the 1994 negotiations to purchase the DSA patents from Mr. Bidzos, CEO of RSA Inc.? 20. Please explain how you can serve on policy and still remain part owner of Podesta & Associates without conflict? 21. Were there or are there any plans to mandate government encryption and nationalize the industry? 22. Why would the Commerce Dept. reference the US government DSA (Digital Signature) algorithm when I requested all information on back doors or special software to monitor US domestic financial transactions? Does DSA contain some back door or other exploitable feature? 23. Explain the role of the FORTEZZA smart card as the proposed national health care card during the 1993 Health Care reform. 24. Does the White House hold closed meetings with other groups covered under the FACA rules? For example I have documents that reference closed meetings with Dr. Willis Ware of the Computer System Security and Privacy Advisory Board. 25. Explain the role of AT&T and CLIPPER? Please note I have documents which detail the 1991 and 1992 meetings between Scrowcroft and AT&T to purchase the initial batch of AT&T 3600 phones. I also have details of the substitution contract to AT&T issued in 1993 to remove the DES chips and put CLIPPER in place. 26. Explain the role of Mrs. Hillary Clinton in encryption policy and project CLIPPER. 27. Explain the relationship between the administration, Mr. Stephens of Arkansas, his company Systematics and the lawsuit over PROMIS software. Again, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I would like the opportunity to follow up if possible. Best of Wishes, Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR ================================================================ 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR http://www.softwar.net softwar(a)softwar.net Pcyphered SIGNATURE: 53A79B0B3629F6D9F2F28DFE4000844F2FF14AA1235806369F861DA7546777BE C10793051D8CC7ED9E0F67D3DAD2B39F113F7A74B8D6A77CE8A867CCB46A99FE 22C5DCF13BD55532 ================================================================ **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

IP: Senate Passes Forward-Looking Electronic Signatures Bill
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

IP: FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: IP: FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps > Date: Sat, 24 Oct 98 22:34:48 -0700 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > From: believer(a)telepath.com > Subject: IP: FCC Proposes Rules for Cellular Wiretaps > Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:57:54 -0500 > To: believer(a)telepath.com > The FCC proposals approved yesterday mark the first time that a neutral > referee has defined what exactly is required by the 1994 law and has thus > defined the final stage of the debate. What in the world makes this person believe that a regulatory agency such as the FCC is a neutral referee? ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

IP: Internet Police on the Prowl in China
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 07:54:22 -0600 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: Internet Police on the Prowl in China Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/digest/wtech001.htm Internet Police on the Prowl in China By Michael Laris Special to The Washington Post Saturday, October 24, 1998; Page A12 BEIJING - As head of the Shanghai Police Department's Computer Security Supervision office, Qing Guang is in charge of ferreting out "harmful information" on the Internet. He has to look only as far as his own in box. Qing is an unwitting subscriber to Chinese VIP Reference, an electronic pro-democracy magazine run by Chinese students and scholars from a small office near Washington's Dupont Circle. Every 10 days, editors e-mail their magazine -- with its essays on "thought liberation," bulletins on democracy activism, and reader-inspired reports on corruption -- to more than 100,000 Internet users in China. Qing is one of them. And that makes the tough-talking Shanghai cop crazy. "For me, this kind of information is useless. When you put it in my mailbox, it's a type of spiritual pollution. All the users don't want to receive these kinds of things," Qing said in a rare interview. "If there was something you didn't need, and I sent it to you by force, could you accept that? Would you be disgusted or not?" The Internet is slowly coming of age in China, prompting a showdown between Communist Party officials who seek to maintain their media monopoly, and upstart Internet publishers relying on powerful technology and their uncensored news coverage to appeal to China's best and brightest. The number of Chinese Internet users has jumped 75 percent this year to 1.2 million, and it is expected to reach 10 million in five years. Eighty-five percent of users are under age 35, and they represent an influential elite of students, intellectuals and officials. VIP Reference reaches at least 10 percent of Chinese users and perhaps a greater percentage if reader surveys about how often it is forwarded are accurate. The Chinese government is ambivalent toward the Internet. Telecommunications officials have been investing millions of dollars to increase Internet access, and national policy supports its swift growth, but propaganda and security officials oppose its unfettered expansion. As Chinese at home and abroad have become more effective at spreading their ideas online, police and state security agents have launched a campaign to train "Internet police" and pursue those responsible for "hostile magazines." "The water that carries the boat can also tip it over. The Internet is also like this," the People's Daily, the most authoritative voice of China's Communist Party, wrote on Oct. 12. "Going online is inevitable, but tremendous economic benefit requires an assurance of safety." China's leaders are not alone in their concern. New York-based Human Rights Watch is looking into reports that governments in Malaysia, Turkey and Bahrain have persecuted their citizens for distributing political information online. "It is precisely because of the Internet's potential for increasing the civil and political participation of the disenfranchised that regulators are seeking to control it," said Jagdish Parikh, online researcher for Human Rights Watch. But China's government, which relied heavily on underground propaganda to build support for taking power in 1949, is especially sensitive about keeping its own censorship structures in place. Authorities boast that China was the first country to require Internet users to register with the government, and police are institutionalizing the monitoring of the country's networks. In Shanghai, for instance, Officer Qing has trained more than 200 employees from government work units to be the eyes and ears of the police on local networks. In three-day seminars, Qing describes the dangers of "black guests," the Chinese term for hackers, and explains Internet security. He also explains China's stringent Internet regulations, which went into effect last January. "No one is allowed to release harmful information on the Internet," Qing said. "You cannot send out harmful information which attacks our nation's territorial integrity, attacks our nation's independence, or attacks our socialist system." Qing would not say how many Internet cases are being prosecuted in China, nor how many police are surfing China's networks. But in interviews, Chinese Internet users who have had run-ins with security forces say the pressure is growing. Lin Hai, a computer entrepreneur in Shanghai, was arrested in March for allegedly providing his database of 30,000 e-mail addresses to VIP Reference. Although Lin had not been active in politics, and had openly sold and exchanged e-mail addresses as part of his online headhunting business, he has been charged with "inciting the overthrow of national power." Xu Hong, Lin's wife, said trading e-mail addresses is considered as sinister as trafficking in postage stamps, and she believes authorities are using her husband to send a message. "It's 'killing a chicken to scare the monkeys,'" she said, using an old Chinese expression. Feng Donghai, a co-founder of VIP Reference who works as a telecommunications researcher at Columbia University, said his parents and friends in China have been visited by state security agents four times in the past several months to investigate him. "I also received a lot of reader messages that they were visited by national security police because they received our magazine," Feng said. But, like Officer Qing, many have an alibi. "When police question our readers, they can claim they never subscribed," Feng said. The magazine has editors and contributors around the United States and in China, and is part news source and part network. Democracy campaigners in China have used it as a forum for discussing reform, and to locate the e-mail addresses and phone numbers of fellow travelers. VIP sends copies of its magazine not only to police officers but also to Chinese lawmakers and government officials, as well as thousands of citizens. VIP also e-mails a smaller-circulation daily update on dissident activities. Readers e-mail the magazine 500 times each day. About 30 of those are requests to be removed from the mailing list, but many others write to talk politics. The Chinese government has set up e-mail filters to block distribution, but editors send the magazine from different addresses each time and have an elaborate system within China to ensure the messages reach their destination. Feng said he gets several dozen e-mail threats a day and has also been hit by e-mail "bombings," which fill up his in box with large files. Several of VIP's other key editors are trying to keep their identities secret to escape similar trouble and to avoid being blacklisted. The chief editor of "Public Opinion," an electronic journal edited in China that focuses on government abuses of power, said he went into hiding after police investigated his company. "I was scared. Many people like me, who say things they shouldn't, have been struck," said the editor, who gave his name as Li Yongming in an e-mail interview from an undisclosed location in southern China. But Li has continued working on the magazine. "I will not let others cover my mouth," he said. © Copyright 1998 The Washington Post Company ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ----------------------- **************************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address or (un)subscribe ignition-point-digest email@address **************************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **************************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

e-cash, banks, systemic risk, and financial safety in the Metro
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998 16:07:04 -0400 (AST) From: Ian Grigg <iang(a)systemics.com> To: dbs(a)philodox.com Subject: e-cash, banks, systemic risk, and financial safety in the Metro Cc: daveb(a)hyperion.com, djackson(a)jackson-trading.com Reply-To: iang(a)systemics.com Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ I've been a faithful believer in the past that banks are not the right organisations to get involved with electronic cash. To some extent, this has been merely a learning exercise in order to determine the shape and composition of the ideal organisation that should be involved; starting off by rejecting the status quo is always educational. When building electronic cash systems, it is an obvious question to ask, and if not, your customers soon do so for you. Over time, another face has arisen, that of defending society from threat of the new world being monopolised by the dinosaurs of yesteryear. In short, the need to keep banks out of electronic cash. At the end of this rant, I have attached a post from Dave Birch of Hyperion, in which he presents some evidence of how banks are failing in the smart card area. This I find personally amusing, as I argued in my paper on the EMI's 1994 Opinion that smart cards were something that the banks could get into and sensibly monopolise. I guess that argument now looks somewhat weak. Whether banks should be involved in electronic cash is part of a wider question as to whether they should be involved in payment systems. Such a question is not really discussed; It is fairly to clear to me after several years of central bank watching that much of the regulators' thinking in these areas is muddied due to their lack of appreciation of the key distinction between banking and payment systems. In private and sometimes in public, the more enlightened of the insiders tend to agree that such a distinction doesn't really make sense to most central bankers. In such a void of discussion, it is insufficient to simply state that the business of payment systems is not the business of banking, as I have been doing for the last few years. Making such a statement does gives rise to the conclusion that as different businesses, payment systems and banking should at least be separately regulated. From any sensible business principles, unless there is a compelling reason to combine them, one separates them (and it should said that the marketing benefits of securing additional customer ownership for banks are not really compelling enough to argue for public intervention). Such an argument is consistent and valuable, but has not really made the grade as far as convincing the world to change. We need more. We need to collect more information on why payment systems need to be decoupled from banking. One argument that has arisen, which I have been recently made aware of through discussions with Douglas Jackson, is that the combination of payment systems and banking raises the risk of systemic failure in the economy. The logic runs like this. Banks, being the places where the money is kept, are subject to attachments by goverments; one of the bugbears of Free Banking is that it is not stable in the long run, being unable to survive a long-term attack by a regulator that seeks to attach the funds managed. Now, leaving aside from our natural distaste of theft with coercion, we need to identify how this makes the system weaker. When a regulator coerces a loan out of a bank, such as occurs regularly in periods of systemic turmoil (LTCM, the Asian crisis, S&L, need we go on?), then the bank that extends these funds will be made weaker. That is, it has somehow been lumbered with a non-performing asset, which weakens its balance sheet. To see how this must be the case, consider what would happen if the loan made was in fact a performing one. Trivially, any bank would take on a performing loan without the advice of any regulator, as this can only be good business. Therefore, any business that the regulator gets involved in must be non-performing, and therefore must involve coercion (or perhaps some other subsidy, but that is not considered here). Now, this pushes the bank in the direction of failure. If the bank fails, we now have two problems, being the original failure that caused the coerced loan and the second failure of the coercee. It takes no learned education to see that this process is starting to look like an epidemic. If the bank does not fail, then all is apparently well and good. Regulators might argue that their coercion and the consequent dead loss to the bank's balance sheet did in fact pay off, in societal terms, and they simply need to be careful to only load up a bank as far as it can support the load. The problem with this is that the regulators can make no such argument. Was it Mises who said that governments have no special monopoly on good decisions, and therefore no better ability to regulate than the market itself? Sooner or later, the regulators will make a mistake, forcing their new found compliant bank into bankrupcy in order to bail out the previous disaster. Can we accept that? We might be able to, if it was some statistical thing - every now and then, our leaders make a mistake, and something breaks. Every now and then a bank fails that did not need to, but most people shed only crocodile tears over bank failures. Well, no. Unfortunately, the mere action of succeeding in repairing the situation by coercing one good bank to bail out another bad bank causes a reward scheme that self-perpetuates the activity. More simply, bad behaviour gets rewarded, and good gets punished. Where does this incentive lead to? Evidently, repeated bail-outs and bad loans across the entire banking industry, which net out to a general weakening of the industry balance sheet. This industry-wide weakening to the system of banks is not a good sign, but when it is coupled, as it causally must be in this case, with a regulator's propensity to shift bad onto good, and risk an occasional mistake in the act, then the whole system is at risk from the very people sworn to protect it. People need banking, not banks. Who said that? He might have been thinking of the above, and perhaps predicting that we would not be able to escape from a situation of regulated weakness in the banking sector. Assuming we cannot avoid the above problem, and it is historically evident that many best efforts have failed, then we must look at containment. Banks may be unsound; the economy must go on. And herein lies the nub of Jackson's argument. What better way to spread failures than through payment systems? Payment systems by their nature link banks into a system of banking. Better than that, or worse as the case may be, payment systems are generally offered to and used by many other sectors of the economy. Such a powerful invention as the payment system, or money as the economists like to call it, will be made universally available. Their power is a double-edged sword. Failure of a payment system is capable of crippling economies, toppling governments and causing widespread destruction of wealth. Russia today, Albania yesterday, and the Weimar Republic in yesteryear are powerful reminders of what happens when the payment system fails. Clearly, to then reserve payment systems to banks, which are fundamentally regulated as to be unsound, is to raise systemic risk. The hitherto unchallenged argument of the central banks, that their role is to protect the system against systemic risk, should now be presented back to them as a reason for them not reserving payment systems for banks. Independant payment systems, separated from the regulated, risky and weakened world in which banks operate, must therefore decrease systemic risk in the financial system, ceteris paribus. This argument is one that supports separation. Is there another? And to be rigourous, is there an argument that supports the combination of banking and payment systems? iang PS: follows is Dave Birch's post that catalysed this rant, although the thoughts have been permeating for many a year. Also note that this inclusion does not in any way evidence Dave's endorsement of my arguments. =======8<==========8<==========8<==========8<==========8<=== From: Dave Birch <daveb-lists(a)mail.hyperion.co.uk> Frank Sudia said >Several large organizations have undertaken consumer purse trials in the >US, which have been miserable failures. The only consumer purse trial I can think of is the Mondex/Visa trial in New York. I saw a report on the web a couple of weeks ago (Business Week? Internesia sets in). The top three places where consumers in New York wanted to use their electronic purses were for subway tickets, taxis and payphones: not one of these was included in the trial. I bet that you can buy a fur coat in Bloomingdales with your Mondex card but not pay a parking meter. Worldwide, the situation is much therefore more interesting than your comment suggests. I might characterise it as follows... Several large organisations (banks) have undertaken consumer digital money trials which haven't been runaway successes. At retail point of sale, which is where electronic purses are being trialled, smartcards have no competitive advantage over cash whatsoever. Why do they persist? It's because banks treat electronic purses as cards (instead of computers, which is what they actually are). As a consequence, they are handled by the "card services" (or whatever) department of the bank. What is "card services" main business? Merchant acquiring. Who do "card services" talk to about electronic purses? The merchants that they already acquire credit card transactions for, rather than they guys who run parking meters, vending machines, payphones, taxi meters etc etc etc. Other large organisations (not banks) have undertaken consumer trials which have been great successes. Examples are * mass transit operators (e.g. Hong Kong mass transit does more smartcard transactions every day than Mondex and VisaCash have done in their history) where people find smartcards far more convenient than tickets or coins. London Transport are soon going to issue more than 7 million contactless smartcards for people to pay for subway and bus fares: how long before the newspaper vendors at the stations accept these cards as well? * campuses (in Europe and the US), where people need change for a million reasons everyday (photocopiers, payphones etc etc) and it saves the campus operators a lot of money to not have collect cash from machines. I'm just as frustrated as everyone else that electronic purses aren't catching on as quickly as I'd like. All I'd say is that purses will come (even in America), so it's best to just take it easy and wait. Regards, Dave Birch. === mailto:daveb@hyperion.co.uk ===== http://www.hyperion.co.uk/ === --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: so, what did Toto *do*, exactly to get locked up? (Re: rules of en
by DOOM Anonymous Untraceable User 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > anonymous wrote > > And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from. > > I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it > > every week for years to come. > > Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his > which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who > claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it > was intentional). That explains it. > This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties > of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's > archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for > inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future > investigations. Echelon. Also see [*1 below] > In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be > protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ) > what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this > umbrella? remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't responsible for it. Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment fig leaf. What archives are there? There is one in Singapore (outside jurisdiction) and one at sof.mit.edu that mysteriously went off the air a little while ago. Or was it something more sinister? On the topic of ECPA, I did an archive search: (my comments in []) From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 11:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Bill writes: > Heh. OK. Well, if one behaves "ethically", then I guess *that* closes > the issue. It's his machine and he gets to make the rules. (this is > my personally-adhered-to point of view) My question is this: how does he know that the mail is encrypted if he's not examining the mail that passes through his system? If he *is* examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. --Mike [hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.] To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: The last word? (forwarded article) From: fergp(a)sytex.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 93 00:21:16 EDT BoardWatch Magazine July 1993 pages 43 - 46 Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service by Peter D. Kennedy [preamble] The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Two provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (or ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)). [*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).] From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)eff.org> Subject: Re: Restrictions on crypto exports Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 23:32:17 -0400 (EDT) [re: public domain software on ftp archives] It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library open to the public. --Mike

1 0

Re: Regarding Mitnick: not.
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 10/25/98 12:11 AM, Information Security (guy(a)panix.com) passed this wisdom: >ZDnet just sent out a newsletter promoting a series of stories, >including this one: > ># IS YOUR KID A HACKER? ># Is your teen hacking the Pentagon instead of doing homework? ># How to tell -- and how to handle it. Convicted hacker Kevin ># Mitnick gives his views. ># ># >http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdnu98102501/www.zdnet.com/familypc/content/9 >810/columns/parental.html > >No mention of Mitnick. > >They apparently meant to name the article author 'Kevin Poulsen'. > ># It happened to my family 15 years ago, in one of the first hacker >raids in the ># country. At that time, I was the teenage miscreant who was illegally >accessing ># federal computers. Now, in my early thirties, I've begun to wonder how >I would ># protect a kid of my own from becoming a poster child for computer >crime. I believe ># the best approach is to stay informed and to communicate with your >potential ># cyberpunks. > >That reminds me. For those who haven't seen it, there is a commercial >showing a little girl (about 8?) walking into an airport, dizzied by >all the destination choices. The narrative turns to ~"and the Internet >too has many destinations, not all of which she is ready for. Travel >together..." > >All things considered, better than the Federales approach. actually it sounds more like "Reefer Madness" nineties style. Brian B. Riley --> http://members.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The first 75% of the project takes 90% of the time; the last 15% of the project takes the other 90% of the time. -- Barry Wainwright and numerous ofthe engineers

1 0